Truespeak

A little over a month ago, the New York Times ran an articleby James Dao about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The count had recently reached 2,000 and Dao was reporting on what he described as "the painful stresses and recurring strains that an extended conflict, with all its demands for multiple tours, is placing on families, towns and the military." In the article he told the stories of several soldiers who have died in Iraq and the struggles their families have had to endure. One of those soldiers was Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

His father, Brian Starr, had been preparing a basement apartment in his home for Corporal Starr to live in after leaving the Marines. Now Mr. Starr plans to turn it into a memorial of sorts, to display Corporal Starr's war ribbons and the neatly folded flag that once draped his coffin. Perhaps he will also install a pool table there to remind people of his son's fun-loving side.

Mr. Starr, an accountant, said he remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But he said he would also like firsthand confirmation that the war, and Corporal Starr's death, were not in vain.

"I'm hoping, my wife is hoping, that we can visit Ramadi," he said, fighting back tears. "And feel safe. And feel like Jeff died for something."

If you read the actual letter from Cpl. Starr (which is absolutely heart-breaking) you'll see that he did indeed write what Dao had quoted.But leave it to the crazies to complain. And who should complain the loudest? Well, none other than uber-wingnut Michelle Malkin. Little did she know that what she was doing would eventually come back to bite one of her own.

Two days after the NYTimes article ran, Malkin complained on her website that the Times had not told the entire story. She included a letter that she alleges to have received from Cpl. Starr's uncle in which he includes more of the original letter's content, including the entire paragraph from which the Times had quoted:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Malkin remarked:

Now you know what the Times left out. Now you know the rest of Corporal Starr's story.

[...]

Thank God for men like him.

As for the Times, what do I always say? It's always more informative for what it leaves out than for what it puts in.

Five days later, Malkin followed up on the story with an Op-ed piece in the NY Post and another rant on her website where she stated:

"OTHERS HAVE DIED FOR MY FREEDOM. NOW THIS IS MY MARK."

These are words you did not read in the New York Times. They are the words of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girlfriend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited by the Times to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism."

My column in the New York Post today and elsewhere follows up on last week's blog post about the Times' butchery.

All feelings for Ms. Malkin aside, she obviously dislikes it when people misquote, or as she says "selectively edit"s, someone's words. Especially, it would appear, the words of our fallen soldiers. So it is with this knowledge that I am sure she is now applying the same scrutiny and resulting ire to George W. Bush's speech this morning. After all, Bush told us about Cpl. Starr's letter when he said:

We pray for the military families who mourn the loss of loves ones. We hold them in our hearts -- and we honor the memory of every fallen soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman, and Marine.

One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

You may have noticed the omission. Bush clearly left out the line that the NYTimes quoted to portray, in Malkin's words, a bogus sense of "fatalism." I wonder what she would call Bush's selective editing... Possibly a bogus sense of optimism?

As for Malkin, I find it interesting that someone who has played fast and loose with the truth on so many occasions should take exception to the NYTimes' "selective editing" of Starr's letter when they were clearly using his to illustrate a specific point. Bush's "selective editing," on the other hand, was a blatant attempt to eliminate any negativity or doubt that our soldiers might harbor about their mission. In my opinion, Bush's omission is a much more egregious misrepresentation of Starr's true feelings than Dao's.

Now, as for Bush, here's what I always like to say: He's always more informative for what his speech writers leave out than for what they put in.